The non-passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill 2017 banning instant triple talaq, in the winter session of Parliament, is evidence of how even public welfare can take a back seat when it comes to politics. This newspaper is yet to fathom why after assisting in the passage of the triple talaq bill in the Lok Sabha, the Congress Party blocked it in the Rajya Sabha, insisting that it be sent to a select committee for further deliberations on criminalising triple talaq. Unless of course the Congress is still smarting from the ignominious defeat handed out to it in May 2014 by the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, and considers it its duty to flex its fast-debilitating Rajya Sabha muscle to make its presence felt. If that is the case, then it’s a sad day for social justice. The welfare of the Muslim woman is the only concern here, not politics.
The Opposition’s contention that triple talaq must not be criminalised, or the jail term to the offender must be diluted, is a flawed argument. If domestic violence is a criminal offence, how can triple talaq not be a criminal offence? Throwing a woman out of her marriage by uttering—sometimes even SMS-ing—“talaq, talaq, talaq”, amounts to domestic violence of the worst kind. It is mostly the poor and uneducated women who are often kept subjugated and oppressed with the constant threat of triple talaq hanging over their head. They are defenceless in the face of such torture. What is this if not domestic abuse? It is only the fear of being sent to prison that can act as a deterrent, to an extent, for abusive husbands. No law is perfect. Criminalising dowry has not eradicated the practice. At the same time, at least a woman being subjected to dowry demands can instil the fear of prison in the heart of the law-breaker. There is nothing civil about dowry or triple talaq. Instant triple talaq is no “ordinary” divorce, hence cannot be treated as a civil case. It is a crime, it is torture. To make it a civil case is to take away the teeth of the law and give an escape route to offenders.
The role being played by the Muslim Personal Law Board in this instance raises several questions. The way the Board is opposing the bill, adds some weight to the charge that a self-imposed organisation full of men with antediluvian views cannot be expected to understand the plight of women. Worse, it appears as if for these gentlemen the triple talaq bill is all about encroaching on their turf, and not about human suffering. Their opposition, it seems, is being driven by the fear of losing the control they have on the lives of the poor and the uneducated. This, in turn, is acting as grist for the political opposition. Most political parties, including some in the NDA, have come to believe that it is bodies like the Muslim Personal Law Board and clerics who determine the voting pattern of Muslims. So keeping these entities happy, they believe, will make Muslims vote for them en bloc—a view they have not been disabused of, in spite of having been proven to be wrong time and again. Perhaps these parties need to realise that by pandering to men who belong to the Jurassic age, they are risking the loss of women’s votes, or at least a substantial section of it.
An issue like instant triple talaq must not be a political battle. It is a matter of a woman’s right to live her life free of fear, and with dignity. The bill cannot be allowed to fall victim to parliamentary manoeuvres and stalling tactics just to serve the interests of some political parties.